If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
That depends on what you think the meaning of the word "is" is?
9th ? ... Aren't they the famous Left Wing Circuit ?
9th ? ... Aren't they the famous Left Wing Circuit ?
I was reading on cal guns, a poster on the site said the 9th district covers Hawaii too. Does this ruling only affect San Diego, or does it go to Hawaii? If it does, then that should get interesting since Hawaii has more B.S. laws than mass.
David Kopel said:California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by California to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
The Court ruled that the legislature may what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but the legislature may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
California law has a process for applying for a permit ...................................The Court ruled that the legislature may what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed),
For if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San Diego County’s policy. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 634 (“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”).
Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”
We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the
safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to
law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the
enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices
off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is
outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation,
where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun
violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not
debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the
Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing
of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules
than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated
76into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.
Good point. Most lower courts have ruled that 2A does apply outside the home, but they do the '2A two-step' and decide that the challenged regulation does not infringe that right. The MD Court of Appeals ruled differently: "If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."
What's seems to be different in this case (I'm still reading the decision) is that the court is calling BS on the 'good cause' requirement.
They then analysed the CA laws, and the application of the "good cause" requirement, and came to the conclusion that the average, law abiding citizen has no ability to lawfully carry a gun outside the home for personal protection.
What I found interesting about this part was that they explicitly identified that police and other privileged classes are typically granted permits, but that the average, law abiding citizen cannot.
Our opinion is not the first to address the question of whether the Second Amendment protects a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Indeed, we are the fifth circuit court to opine expressly on the issue, joining an existent circuit split. Compare:
- Moore - (“[a] right to bear arms . . . implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home” and striking down the open-and concealed-carry regulatory regime in Illinois because the state failed to justify “so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense”)
- Drake - (recognizing that the right to bear arms may have some application outside the home, but concluding that New Jersey’s “justifiable need” permitting requirement was a presumptively lawful longstanding regulation or, alternatively, that the New Jersey regulatory scheme survived intermediate scrutiny)
- Woollard - (presuming that Second Amendment protections exist outside the home and upholding Maryland’s regulatory scheme because it could not “substitute [a different] view for the considered judgment of the General Assembly,” which “appropriate[ly] balance[d]” the interests involved),
- Kachalsky - (proceeding on the “assumption” that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but affording “substantial deference to the predictive judgments of [the legislature]” and thus upholding the gun regulations under intermediate scrutiny).
Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation in Moore, and at odds with the approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in Drake, Woollard, and Kachalsky.